3 ms·

Is that kind of financial-decision something the President can reliably promise under current law, as opposed to needing Congressional involvement? Does it app

• grajaganDev 2y ago
  >President can reliably promise under current law, as opposed to needing Congressional involvement? I don't think so and your question was not addressed in the article. Seems like very biased and irresponsible reporting. >Does it apply to people dismissed because the President demanded to know how they voted and didn't like the answer? Good point - I would expect they get nothing.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    > I would expect they get nothing. A Not-Actually-Fun-Fact I learned today: Even the Nazis doing their early purge of the German government [0] still found it necessary to offer 3 months of severance and 3/4ths continued pension. [0] The 1933 legislation was against "officials whose previous political activities do not guarantee that they will always be fully committed to the national state."
• m348e912 2y ago
  The president is the head of the executive branch so technically he can make the decision to implement a new work policy. That doesn't mean it won't be challenged and that the courts won't have an opportunity to overturn it. Procedurally it reminds me when the Biden administration issued a mandate for federal workers and federal contractors to be vaccinated for Covid 19. That mandate was ultimately blocked and overturned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-mandate-federal-workers-appeals-court/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-mandate-federal-w...